DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
ES
Docket No: 6437-14
21 April 2015
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
United States Code, section 1552.
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the
Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute
of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A
three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
15 April 2015. The names and votes of the members of the panel
will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted
of your application, together with all material submitted in
Support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes,
regulations, and policies.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty
on 16 February 1978. You served for nine months without
disciplinary incident, but during the period from
8 November 1978 to 11 March 1980, you were convicted by summary
courts-martial (SCM) and received seven nonjudicial punishments
(NUP) for several periods of unauthorized absence, failure to go
to your place of duty, disobeying a superior officer, possession
of marijuana on two occasions, and communicating a threat.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your period of satisfactory service and desire to upgrade your
discharge. Nevertheless, based on the information currently
contained in your record, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant an upgrade of your discharge given
your misconduct which resulted in SCM and seven NUPs.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
. aomaienits
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence within one year from the date of the Board’s
decision. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by
the Board prior to making its decision in your case. In this
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of
regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when
applying for a correction of an official naval record, the
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of
probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
OBERT J. ‘NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6452 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 2015. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5349 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 May 2015. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 13 June 1978, you received NUP for a seven day period of UA from your unit.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6409 14
32 three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR04500 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2014. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5108 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 May 2015. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 22 May 1969, you were convicted by SPCM of a 79 day period of UA and sentenced to a $97 forfeiture of pay, reduction to paygrade E-1, confinement...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7285 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2015. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in Support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01454-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 December 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the - existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4500 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2014. Five months later, on 11 July 1978, you were convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of two periods of UA totaling 78 days, and was sentenced to a $530 forfeiture of pay, reduction in pay grade, confinement for two months and a suspended bad conduct discharge (BCD). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05796-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. On 14 June 1979, you received NUP for being disrespectful toward you a chief petty officer on two occasions, and failure to obey a written regulation. On 17 February 1983, after appellate review, you received the BCD.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07289-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...